A closer look at Tri-Ess

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:51 am

Gotta love this scale.

(balance)

I'm with Lefty on this one Marilyn.

I think the SO component is HUGE. Tri-Ess' importance to hetero CDs is very, very important and I think a large part of it's success has to do with accepting wives and their ability to talk with one another.

I guess when I do the math, I can't come close to understanding it without including what Lefty is saying in my Tri-Ess equation.

Beauty

Nancy · Post by **Nancy** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:54 am

Alexandra, to answer your question, Peter Oiler lost his case his job and the ALCU decided not to appeal the case.

To me this indicates, be careful who you come out to because as much as we think or feel things have gotten better for us I think we are still a long long way from acceptance.

About Tri-Ess, what can I say? All I know is that every person that has come to our chapter has been offered help and support. If the girl is nonheterosexual or TS then we refer her to help that is far better suited to support and help her. If she still wants to come to our meetings then fine she can come as a friend and as long as she conducts and follows the guide lines of the chapter and Tri-ess she is welome and she is supported just like the rest of the girls.

I would not go to an MD to have him look at my teeth nor would I go to a Baptist church to have my confession heard. Am I upset that the MD refers me to the Dentist or that the Minister directs me to the Priest in the Catholic church? NO.

I am not saying Tri-ess and the many chapters don't have problems or even different views not only from the commuity but even between chapters. Heck, and dont let this get out but there are other policical parties that I my self have trouble accepting becuase they do not support everyone either.

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 3:56 pm

Nancy, then you'll agree that Tri-Ess should probably should not be speaking on behalf of TG/TS/non-hetrosexual crossdressers at the national level???

My view is this: TG/TS people are NOWHERE as far as civil rights, employment rights, marriage rights, adoption, etc, etc, . . . compared to lets say, the gay rights movements . . . if anything we're hitching a ride on their coattails.

I'm not going to accept a 2nd class life . . . so as a result, I am pointing out what I see as "housecleaning details" that need to be straightened out among ourselves if we all are ever achieve equal status with the rest of society before my time on Earth is up.

I'm now going to try to figure out what went wrong in the Peter Oiler case . . . my guess is Oiler was working for a non-union Dixie-Winn division. If this is the case, then employers can fire AT WILL because there is/was no national (or apparently local) civil right protection for CD/TG. (This is a prime example why we need a STRONG and UNIFIED national organization in Washington DC with a room full of full-time lawyers and lobbyists.) Had Oiler worked in Multnomah Co. Oregon (Portland) or had a union job, the outcome might have been different or his employer would have never had canned him in the first place.

[here's the scoop on the winn-dixie case . . . I should have known the GOP and Bush figured into this . . . ARRGGHHHHH!!]

http://www.genderadvocates.org/News/Oil ... fight.html

Peter Oiler Ends Court Fight
Blames Conservative Political Environment

NEW ORLEANS, LA (Jan. 9, 2003) Peter Oiler, a former truck driver fired by the Winn-Dixie grocery chain after telling a supervisor he cross-dressed off-duty, dropped his lawsuit against the company because he reportedly feared another loss in the current conservative political environment would impede anti-discrimination efforts.

Oiler, citing recent Republican gains in Congress and President Bush's re-nomination of Charles Pickering to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where his case would be tried, told the Associated Press: "I'm afraid I would have done more harm to the cause than good."

U.S. District Judge Lance Africk ruled against Oiler last Sept., saying his claims did not fall under Title VII, the federal statute outlawing sex discrimination, or under the landmark Supreme Court case, Price Waterhouse v. Cooper, barring sex stereotyping in the workplace. In Nov. Africk rejected an appeal by Oiler to hear the case again.

Winn Dixie, Inc. is now suing Oiler to cover the company's legal fees of $9,000. The two parties are set to appear in court on Feb. 5.

In January 2000, Winn-Dixie fired Mr. Oiler because he occasionally cross-dressed off-duty, claiming that customers might stop shopping at the grocery chain if they found out. In contrast, the company made no claims about Mr. Oiler's job performance, which was reportedly competent. As a result, Oiler sued the company with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for sex discrimination under Title VII of the American Civil Rights Act of 1964.

from GENDER PUBLIC ADVOCACY COALITION
NATIONAL NEWS February 5, 2003

Beauty · Post by **Beauty** » Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:11 pm

Beauty

Nancy · Post by **Nancy** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:01 am

Nancy, then you'll agree that Tri-Ess should probably should not be speaking on behalf of TG/TS/non-hetrosexual crossdressers at the national level???

I have to say NO I do not agree is my answer to your question Alexandra. I feel that everyone, or any organization or group or what have you has just as much right to speak up or state their take on a subject or issue as anyone else does.

My view is this: TG/TS people are NOWHERE as far as civil rights, employment rights, marriage rights, adoption, etc, etc, . . . compared to lets say, the gay rights movements . . . if anything we're hitching a ride on their coattails

My view is the gay rights movement probably has way more members than the TG/TS commuity. Lets face it gays, lesbians, and BI's can function and be in the mix much easier then we in the TG/TS community can. Therefore they have the numbers it takes to support and cause the changes that they have so far. They have encluded our commuities for the added numbers and support. And we have hitched onto their coattails yes.

I'm not going to accept a 2nd class life . . . so as a result, I am pointing out what I see as "housecleaning details" that need to be straightened out among ourselves if we all are ever achieve equal status with the rest of society before my time on Earth is up.

This brings me to ask you are you saying that Tri-Ess because it has a voice to and chooses to speak makes the TS/TG community 2nd class and being that should be sweap away in your "housecleaning details?"

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:24 pm

Nancy, I'm saying society has made us 2nd class citizens, not Tri-Ess . . . I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I believe we have to have some kind of unity among ourselves (CDs AND TGs) if we're to overcome 2nd class treatment by society.

Yes, you're right, anybody can speak up and have a take on a subject, including Tri-Ess . . . unfortunately there is a line that is crossed when Tri-Ess gives the impression to the general public that they are speaking on behalf of TGs when the fact of the matter TG people are actually excluded from Tri-Ess membership. By crossing this line, they've triggered backlash from within the TG/CD community, ie: author Helen Boyd, and also criticism from within Tri-Ess . . . here is one I found:

An Open Letter to Tri-Ess
Membership Focus or Discrimination
A Case Against Tri-Ess Membership Policies
By Marla Louise

In issue #72 of ‘Crosstalk’, Kymberleigh Richards made a well-reasoned argument in support of the Tri-Ess exclusionary policies based on a need for focus. These exclusionary policies delineate themselves in a membership restriction specifically prohibiting transsexuals and homosexuals from membership. The big question here is whether these exclusionary policies are justified or are excuses for discrimination.

First, let me say that I also am a member of Tri-Ess. I also strongly support the idea of Tri-Ess focusing in on the needs of one sub-group of the transgender community, namely the crossdresser. However, unlike Kymberleigh and apparently the board of Tri-Ess, I do not believe that the need for focus justifies the Tri-Ess membership restrictions. On the contrary, I feel the membership restrictions are unjustified, being just an excuse for discrimination, and damaging both to the community as a whole and Tri-Ess in particular.

This is a strong accusation, but not an isolated one. Not only does this accusation come from those outside Tri-Ess, the accusation also comes from many members within Tri-Ess. As such, I would like to explain why I feel this policy is insupportable. . . . (more)

read the rest here: http://members.aol.com/marlalouis/triess.htm

Needless to say, this argument is neither new or unique. Everybody would benefit from this topic being addressed.

Alexandra · Post by **Alexandra** » Sat Feb 21, 2004 4:36 pm

I found out that Ms. Louise's comment has been posted/published at several sites around the net: I found this at the TG Forum here: http://www.tgforum.com/mail.html It is an apparent rebuttal to Ms. Louise's comments.

Richards Reacts
(Ed. Note: Kymberleigh Richards, whose work stimulated the above letter, was invited to respond to Ms. Louise's comments. She replied with a copy of posting to a usenet article that was tied to the same issue.) The following is reply to a posting by Callan Williams (thecallan@aol.com)
>Kym notes that there are other groups with an "exclusive focus," and >points to the XX Club. Her argument fails when you note that the XX club >does not have any restrictions on membership, merely a focus.

>If Tri-Ess is a group focused on transgendered males in traditional >relationships (with women), that's fine. But that is different than >Tri-Ess being a group exclusively for self diagnosed "hetrosexual >crossdressers." It is the exclusivity that means that Tri-Ess will limit >people from exploring and end up cutting out people with a passionate >committment to figuring out how transgender expression can fit into >tradional "breeding" relationships.

Nice try, Callan.

But semantic sleight-of-hand does not make an argument.

The truth is that "focus" does equal "membership restriction" in practical application, regardless of how to want to state it. Why? Because that's the way people will automatically interpret it.

And that was the basis of the entire original flame war, and is why I opted not to publish Marla's rebuttal in "Cross-Talk". It is also why I refuse to reopen the discussion beyond this post.

You want to flame? Go ahead. The original flame war resulted in my receiving several inquiries about Tri-Ess from people who hadn't heard of it before everyone got so upset. Most of those inquirers said they felt an organization focused on hetero CDs was what they wanted; all of them accepted my offer to mail them information; a couple of them were kind enough to e-mail me again to tell me they had joined.

IMHO, this kind of flame war is better than a membership drive.

Kymberleigh Richards

I do not agree with Ms. Richards.